Armed with a number of powerful arguments, the authors invite us to face up to the evidence for violence in early Neolithic Europe. Linearbandkeramik (LBK) people first attacked the huntergatherersthey encountered and then entered a period of increasingly violent warfare againsteach other, culminating in an intense struggle in the area of central and western Germany. Thebuilding of fortifications, physical mutilation and cannibalism, while no doubt enacted withritual airs, nevertheless had their context and purpose in the slaughter of enemies.

IntroductionThe prevalence of conflict or warfare between social groups in prehistory is itself ahotly contested topic at present. Where many prehistorians note evidence for violencein fortifications, skeletal trauma and weapons, others prefer to assign it to ritual or symbolicpractice. This intellectual thrust and parry is exemplified in the study of the earliest farmingculture of central Europe, the Linearbandkeramik (Linear Pottery or LBK) culture. Here,evidence includes a large number of enclosed (and likely fortified) village sites, and anabundance of burial trauma, which might suggest that violence was common and at timesabnormally intense among these early European agriculturalists. However, as in many otherregions of the world, there have been criticisms of the interpretation of this data as relatingto inter-group conflict. We broadly define warfare here as ‘armed conflict between any socialand political units’ (Keeley & Quick 2004: 110; see Keeley 1996: Chapter 1 for a more indepthdiscussion).It is our purpose to review the evidence for warfare found at LBK archaeological sites,particularly burial trauma and the fortification of sites.We conclude that conflict was highlyprevalent, particularly at later period western sites, and, furthermore, that there is increasingevidence to support the claim previously put forth by one of the authors (Keeley 1998) thatthis conflict not only occurred between LBK communities, but also between LBK farmersand indigenous hunter-gatherers. We wish to place this violence in its proper prehistoriccontext, as to its frequency and social context at the time of the earliest appearance ofagriculture in Central Europe some 7500 years ago.

Evidence for conflict in the LinearbandkeramikThe Linearbandkeramik is perhaps the best-studied Neolithic culture in all of Europe, withhundreds of sites having been subjected to excavation over the last century. It was initiallybelieved that the movement of agriculture into central Europe occurred via a process ofpeaceful migration of peoples deriving from the Near East. Little was made of the fate ofindigenous hunting-gathering peoples that had previously occupied central Europe, and nosolid evidence existed to demonstrate the occurrence of violence of any kind. It has becomeclear in recent years that the earlyNeolithic was in fact a much more complex and sometimesvery violent period.While the idea of a large-scale migration into central Europe by farmers has been criticisedrecently (see Whittle 1996 for instance), many researchers studying the LBK still hold thatphysical migration of a substantial number of people offers the best explanation for thesudden appearance of a radically new material culture and subsistence system between 5700and 4900 calBC (Bogucki 2000; Gronenborn 1999; Keeley & Golitko 2004). A recentreview of radiocarbon dates shows that, in contrast to some other regions of Europe, theMesolithic/Neolithic transition in the LBK region was quite abrupt, with little overlapbetween dates for the two traditions, though this does not rule out low levels of mixingbetween populations (Gkiasta et al. 2003: 59). While regional chronologies exist, we hereaccept a four-period division: the oldest phase (with expansion out of Hungary into Austria,the Czech Republic and Slovakia, southern Poland, and eastern and central Germany), twomiddle phases (expansion through the Rhine Valley into the low Countries, Alsace and theParis Basin, and in the east into Poland, Romania and the Ukraine), and the youngest phase(regional diversification in already settled areas with significant population growth).

Evidence of traumatic injuryPerhaps the most obvious evidence for past conflicts is provided by the presence of certaintypes of traumatic injury in burial populations. This is particularly the case if these involveembedded projectile points or traumas indicating blunt instruments. When no healing isevident, the trauma was the probable cause of death (Keeley 1999: 340; Keeley & Quick2004: 110; Milner et al. 1991: 589). In addition, many other types of ‘culturally modified’human remains that are found at archaeological sites are most plausibly explained as indirectevidence of inter-group conflict.There are a number of now well known LBK contexts that have demonstrated thatviolence was often quite severe during the early Neolithic of Central Europe. This was firstdemonstrated with the publication in 1987 of the mass grave at Talheim (in the middleRhine valley) (Wahl&K¨onig 1987). There, a pit containing LBK culturalmaterial (youngerto youngest phase) was found to contain the remains of 34 skeletons, comprising 16 childrenand infants, 9 adult males, and 7 adult females, representing, in the opinion of the authors,the whole population of a small LBK village. All were killed by blunt force trauma to thehead caused by LBK axes or adzes. One adult male skull had evidently been struck byan arrow. There were no signs of resistance in the form of parry fractures (Vencl 1999:60-61).

A similar massacre occurred at the enclosed site of Schletz-Asparn, near Vienna. Thesmall section of ditch excavated there contained the remains of 66 individuals; almost allhad been killed with LBK axes or adzes, though an arrow had killed one individual. Theremains were fragmented and showed signs of gnawing, indicating exposure for some timeafter death, and, again, the demography suggests that a full village was wiped out. Theexcavators estimate that had the full ditch been excavated, upward of 300 individuals mighthave been uncovered (Windl 1999a, 1999b; Teschler-Nicola et al. 1996).At Herxheim, in the Rhine Valley, some 173 skulls and skull-pates were found withintwo enclosure ditches and the interior settlement. In addition to the skulls, upwards of 334individuals may be represented by scattered remains, while two articulated skeletons werefound sprawled out within the inner ditch. These remains contrast with a number of typicalsemi-flexed burials found within the settlement area (H¨außer 2000: 82; Spatz 1998: 18).The removal of skull-pate at the site seems to have followed a regular procedure involvingcutting and slight burning (Haidle & Orschiedt 2001: 147-153).At Vaihingen, an enclosed LBK site near Stuttgart, a dozen individuals were depositedwithin two large rubbish pits, while further scattered remains were found throughout thesite, contrasting with the typical burials dug into the enclosure ditch at a later time. Mostof these individuals appear to have been somewhat unceremoniously dumped into theirfinal burial context, and showed signs of various forms of injury and mutilation. Some ofthe typical LBK burials in the ditch bore evidence of violence as well, with one individualhaving suffered a parry fracture, and another killed by a crushing blow to the skull (Krauseet al. 1998: 93-95; 97-98).Mutilated remains are known from many sites, for instance skull drinking cups foundin the enclosure ditch at Eilsleben, or cannibalised leg bones at the enclosed site of Ober-H¨ogern (Kaufmann 1990: 21-22; Kneipp & B¨uttner 1988: 494-96; Spatz 1998: 13).Remains bearing evidence of cannibalism are known from a number of sites, many ofwhich were enclosed (Peter-R¨ocher 1994: 104-108; V encl 1999: 64).While these instancesrepresent quite dramatic examples of violent death, not all are necessarily the direct result ofinter-group warfare, for instance the skull caches at Herxheim.Were this the only evidence of skeletal trauma present at LBK sites, it would be easyto dismiss violence as only an occasional or infrequent occurrence. However, evidencefrom typical semi-flexed LBK burials points towards a more regular presence of conflict inLBK life. In a comprehensive study, Petrasch has calculated the total percentages of LBKindividuals who suffered fromtraumatic injury at some point during their lives. Limiting hisstudy only to those burial populations that have been subjected to pathological examination,he arrives at the staggering figure of almost 20 per cent. Removing the data from Talheim,Schletz-Asparn, andHerxheim, 6.2 per cent of all known burials show evidence for traumaticinjury (Petrasch 1999: 508-509). Some of these injuries were survived; several individualsat Talheim, for instance, bore traces of having survived traumatic head injuries, only to bekilled later in life (Wahl&K¨onig 1987: 177-78). Individuals must have engaged in repeatedviolent engagements throughout their lives.Violence was evidently more intense in the western LBK area (roughly from centralGermany westwards), the upper value being a staggering 32 per cent. This compares withonly 2 per cent of skeletons in the east having suffered injuries (Milisauskas 2002: 178).While 2 per cent is representative of a society in which conflict is prevalent, the westernLBK is comparable to the most violent known societies, in which conflict is a constantpreoccupation (Keeley 1996: Tables 6.1 & 6.2; LeBlanc & Register 2003: 224). The arrowwounds at Schletz-Asparn and Talheim suggest that this rate may have been even higher attimes, as upwards of 70 per cent of all arrow wounds produce no skeletal trauma (Milner2005: 150).While Petrasch does not separate his data by gender, the under-representation ofwomen in the population at Schletz-Asparn (Windl 1999a: 43) may indicate that they weretaken alive, suggesting that men suffered the majority of injuries. While trauma seems tohave been most frequent in later western LBK contexts, including the material from Talheimand Herxheim, the material recovered at Vaihingen (Flomborn phase) and Schletz-Asparn(Notenkopf phase) indicates that violence was not unknown in earlier LBK contexts. It haseven been suggested that violence in the later western LBK was so extreme as to entail a‘crisis’ period (Spatz 1998).

LBK enclosures: evidence for fortificationThe existence of enclosed LBK settlements has been known since the early twentiethcentury, with the first large-scale excavation being carried out by Buttler and Haberey atK¨oln-Lindenthal between 1929 and 1934. While most are ditched enclosures, there are alsoa number of sites that are surrounded only by palisades. These early researchers interpretedenclosures as fortifications, but the function of these installations was questioned in lateryears. A number of recent authors have been highly critical of the assignment of a defensivefunction to these places. Whittle, for example, has referred to them as ‘formalized communalspace’ (Whittle 1996: 174), while in a recent textbook it is claimed that ‘not all (indeed,perhaps very few) bandkeramik enclosures were defensive in nature . . . ’ (Scarre 2005: 411).The denial of a defensive function has been based on a number of lines of evidence, none ofwhich are backed by ethnographic or historical data. While comprehensive reviews of suchsites have been published by L¨uning (1988) and H¨ockmann (1990), these are rarely citedwhen it comes to making broad statements about ‘all’ such enclosures. Thus, it has beenvariously argued that LBK enclosures cannot represent defensive installations because theirditches are too shallow (in the order of one metre), enclose too small an area, have limitedevidence of internal settlement, or contain evidence of ritual activity (often cannibalism orother skeletal manipulation). As a result, LBK enclosures have sometimes been interpretedas cattle kraals or ritual/symbolic enclosures (Kaufmann 1997: 46).While few researchers now support the ‘cattle kraal hypothesis’, due to the unnecessarilylarge amount of labour required to construct them (Keeley&Cahen 1989: 170), many haveassigned a ritual function to them, particularly for enclosures of the type that Kaufmannlabels the ‘Langweiler type’, i.e. those that have little evidence of internal settlement(Kaufmann 1997: 66-67). However, as demonstrated by a review of historically and ethnographicallyknown fortifications, none of these arguments necessarily rules out the assignmentof a basic defensive function to LBK enclosures. The Romanmilitary, for instance, dugthe perimeter ditches of their legionary camps to a depth of only c . 0.9m, though the preferreddepth for more permanent installations was over 2m, i.e. slightly deeper than a personis tall (see Polybius & Pseudo Hyginus 1994; Josephus 1970; Grant 1974: 300; Lawrence1979: 80-81, 309, 340-341; Keeley et al. in press). There is no particular absolute size belowwhich an enclosure cannot function as a fortification. In fact, smaller refuge fortificationswithout substantial interior settlement may require less manpower to defend than onesthat enclose larger settlements, and are well documented historically and ethnographically(Keeley 1996: 57-58). The presence of ‘ritual’ activity is well evidenced at enclosed LBK sites,but the meaning of this ritual is seldom discussed. The practice of ritual at an enclosed site inno way inherently implies a non-defensive function; the symbolic importance of a particularlocation often derives from its prosaic function – if an enclosure symbolises exclusion, socialsolidarity, or any of a number of other things, it often does so because it provides a realphysical deterrent against entry by outsiders (Keeley 2003: 252). Furthermore, there aremany examples of fortifications enclosing ritual areas – as these areas may be particularlyimportant to protect (Keeley et al. in press).Of particular relevance to the present discussion, are several features for which only amilitary function is appropriate: V- or Y-sectioned enclosure ditches, and complex formsof gates: baffled, offset, crab-claw, labyrinthine or screened. V or Y-sectioned ditches areimpractical for any domestic purpose, as they erode more quickly than any other form andare more difficult to dig, but they represent an ideal form for purposes of defence againsthuman attack, since they offer maximum exposure of any would-be attacker to defensiveprojectile fire from above. By contrast, U-sectioned or flat-bottomed ditches may serve avariety of functions (earth extraction, drainage, etc.), one of which may be defence (moatsfor instance are often flat-bottomed with straight walls or U-sectioned to minimise erosion).When backed by an internal berm and/or palisade, it is certain that a defensive purpose wasintended (Keeley et al. in press). At some Neolithic ceremonial sites in Ireland, for instance,ring ditches with outer berms (a non-defensive arrangement likely indicative of only ritualfunction) were altered during the Bronze Age to incorporate an inner berm, palisade, andother defensive features at the same time that warfare intensified (Champion et al. 1984:294-95).Similarly, complex gate arrangements such as baffles or screens are counter-productive asentrances for cattle kraals or for purposes of daily activity (making it pointlessly difficult toenter or exit), but are known as classic defensive features at numerous sites stretching acrossthousands of years of history. The primary functions of such gates are to limit the numberof attackers that may enter at once, to prevent direct use of projectile weapons against thoseinside, and to force attackers to adopt a non-defensive body positioning (i.e. turned to theside) when entering (Keeley et al. in press).Our review of the literature indicates that there are at present 84 sites known with evidenceof enclosure that are securely dated to the LBK, six of which evidence multiple phases ofenclosure (see database at http://www.uic.edu/depts/anth/faculty/keeley).We have recordeddata on location, chronological phase, area/length excavated, ditch form, width, and depth,number and type of gates/interruptions, presence or absence of berms and/or palisades,settlement and wells or cisterns, available radiocarbon dates, and the presence or absenceof human remains. In some cases, data was available for only certain site features. (Whendata was not available, sites were removed from the total list for purposes of computingpercentages).The greatest number of enclosed sites date to the younger or youngest phases of the LBK,with fewer dating tomiddle stages, and very few to the oldest LBK (47 per cent v. 41 per centv. 12 per cent respectively, n=78). Furthermore, the majority (62 per cent, n=84) of suchsites are found in the western portion of the LBK distribution. Seventy-five per cent (n=75)of all known enclosures include defensive ditches. Some palisades without associated ditchesmay be small enclosures best described as pens or kraals (Bedburg-Garsdorf and Zwenkau-Harth, for instance), while others clearly enclosed a larger settlement area and includedcomplex defensive gate arrangements (Sittard, Elsloo, and K¨oln-Lindenthal I (palisade P),for instance). Limited excavation makes it difficult to determine in some cases.Fifty-nine per cent of all known enclosure ditches are V- or Y-sectioned (n=56), and41 per cent U-sectioned or flat-bottomed. Many times, as at sites such as Darion-Colia,Waremme-Longchamps, or Stephansposhing, ditches are shallower and U-sectioned awayfrom gates, and deeper and V-sectioned near gates. Limited excavation may therefore bean issue in terms of identifying defensive features. These ditches average 2.8m wide and1.6m deep. Given that all LBK sites have experienced some degree of erosion, typically0.5-1m, most of these ditches would have been easily as deep or deeper than the heightof any potential early Neolithic attacker in their original form. Fifty-four per cent of allknown enclosures at which at least one gate or interruption was excavated (n=48, includingpalisaded sites) possess defensive gate arrangements. Combining both lines of data, the totalnumber of LBK enclosed sites that possess defensive features as here defined is 51, or 70 percent of the total number (73) for which sufficient data are available.Nevertheless, we do not believe that a defensive role can be ruled out for many of theremaining ditched enclosures that display neither complex gates nor V- or Y-sectionedditches. Schletz-Asparn II, at which there is perhaps the most direct evidence of actualviolent conflict, possesses neither of these features, yet we strongly suspect that it was builtto deter human attack, though it tragically failed its occupants in that capacity.The intentional enclosure of a dependable water supply in the form of wells or cisternsis also an occasional feature (8 per cent, n=84) of LBK enclosures (Jadin & Cahen 1998:125), further supporting their probable use as fortifications. Almost all LBK sites are locatedwithin sight of water, usually second- or third-order streams. Only the anticipated denialof access to adjacent streams would necessitate the labour of digging and lining wells andcisterns to secure an internal source.

DiscussionGiven the almost exact chronological and geographical correlation between prevalence ofburial trauma and the frequency of construction of enclosures with obvious defensivepurpose, such constructions must represent a material response to violence. There isabundant ethnographic evidence indicating that fortification is a response to violenceoften taken by sedentary farming groups (Keeley 1996: 56-57; LeBlanc & Register 2003:Chapter 6). Where violence in LBK society was relatively subdued (early and in later easterncontexts), there was a corresponding lesser need to construct fortifications. Where violencewas extremely intense, a greater need for fortification was felt (later western contexts).There is a distinct association between enclosed sites and not only remains that can betaken as immediate evidence of conflict (i.e. Schletz-Asparn and Vaihingen), but also withskeletal material that has been modified in a way described by many researchers as ‘ritualistic’,as atOber-H¨orgern,Herxheim and elsewhere.However, even if ritual practice were involved,many researchers seem to view it as an exclusive alternative explanation to warfare: theimplication is that the victims of the violent rituals were come by via peaceful means.However, ritual is rarely purely epi-phenomenal, but instead relates to other practices withinsociety (e.g. Malinowski 1961; Turner 1967), and in this case is strongly related to otherevidence for warfare. Turning again to the ethnographic record, there are a number of reasonsfor resorting to such gruesome activities. Starvation or culinary cannibalism is documented,but results in human remains that show butchery and cooking marks identical to those onother animals consumed. This does not match the data from LBK sites. Far more commonis ‘ritual’ cannibalism, in which portions of an enemy’s body are consumed, typicallyin a proscribed way as to which portions are eaten (Keeley 1996: 103-106; LeBlanc &Register 2003: 60). Given the nature of the remains from the sites mentioned, there emergesa pattern of consumption and manipulation of particular portions of the human body, forinstance left legs atOber-H¨orgern, or skulls and skull-pates at a number of sites. While thesewere undoubtedly ‘ritual’ activities, archaeology indicates that such activities were relatedto warfare, and ethnography indicates that the most likely victims of such activity werecaptured enemies.The remains from Schletz-Asparn and Talheim, as well as numerous other sites, indicatebeyond a doubt that, much of the time, these enemies came from other LBK villages.The crushing blows to the head that killed most individuals at these sites were inflicted byLBK-style axes and adzes. Furthermore, the researchers who studied the remains at Talheimwere able to determine that the attributes of all the skeletons present were consistent withthose individuals having belonged to an LBK population in terms of skeletal robustness,dentition, stature and skull form (Wahl&K¨onig 1987).While the topic of causes is difficultto address archaeologically, it is to be presumed that in a tribal agricultural society, reasonsfor fighting were numerous, and motives may have included revenge for prior attacks, landdisputes, poaching, prestige, capture of slaves or capture of women (Keeley 1996: Table 8.1),as the under-representation of young women at Schletz-Asparn likely indicates. Theintensification of such warfare seen during the latest western LBK has been linked to anumber of causes, including environmental degradation (which would not explain whyviolence remained less intense in the east) or over population (Spatz 1998: 14-15).There is also evidence, however, to justify the argument previously put forward by one of usthat at times this conflict occurred between LBK farming groups and indigenousMesolithicpeoples (Keeley 1998). While many researchers are quite content to cite ethnographicexamples of trade and acculturation between farmers and foragers (Gregg 1988: Scarre2005: 407), this ignores an equally substantial body of ethnographic data that demonstratesthat conflict is another common form of interaction (Keeley 1996: 131-38; Keeley&Cahen1989: 171-72). The ‘Mesolithic’ argument is based on a number of lines of archaeologicalevidence.Many fortified sites cluster along the limits of LBK settlement, particularly duringthe earliest phases (Keeley 1996: 137-39). The short periods of use of many fortificationsindicates that they were constructed to counter a threat that quickly disappeared, which mayhave been the case if farmers at far higher settlement density quickly killed or incorporatedlocal hunter-gatherers living at extremely low population density. The only multi-phaseenclosure for which we have good data regarding trauma, Schletz-Asparn, demonstrates thatthe second-phase ditch was built to counter the threat of other LBK communities. Thereis a c . 20-25km wide ‘no-man’s land’ between LBK sites and final Mesolithic sites in theHesbaye region of Belgium (Keeley 1996: 139). According to LeBlanc (1999: 69) ‘that suchareas existed is an extremely strong line of evidence for warfare, because it is unlikely that peoplewould have given up their use of an area without a very good reason’. Kaufmann (1990: 25)mentions the disappearance ofMesolithic sites in the vicinity of Eilsleben at the time of firstLBK settlement, as does Jochim (2000: 195-196) in south-western Germany, in the vicinityof fortified sites such as Vaihingen. The possibility exists, though is by no means proven,that buffer zones existed in areas other than the Hesbaye as well.The only ‘Mesolithic’ style artefacts found at many LBK sites are projectile points, whilethe only LBK artefacts typically found at Mesolithic sites are axes or adzes, for both ofwhich there is evidence to suggest their use as weapons (Keeley 1998: 309). Milisauskashas previously suggested that the far higher frequency of projectile points in western LBKassemblages as contrasted with those in the east is indicative of their use as weapons, asthere is no similar evidence to suggest that hunting was more frequently practised in onearea than another (Milisauskas 1986: 4; 143). In fact, the hunting of game declined withtime (Gronenborn 1999: 162-63), while the frequency of projectile points did not. Thefrequency of projectile points is, however, correlated geographically with the frequency ofburial trauma and fortification. We would add to the previous points the recent discoveryat Vaihingen that individuals buried in rubbish pits show greater skeletal robusticity thanthose recovered from formal burial contexts (Krause et al. 1998: 96), suggesting that theybelonged to a separate population, likely of hunter-gatherers. Strontium isotope analysis ofskeletons from Vaihingen has demonstrated that there are ‘non-local’ individuals present inboth settlement and ditch contexts, but it is unclear whether any of these were the sameindividuals found in non-typical burial contexts (Bentley et al. 2003: 479-82).

ConclusionThe archaeological evidence, coupled with ethnographic analogy, demonstrates that warfarewas a frequent occurrence during the earlier phases of LBK expansion, while in later westerncontexts its frequency seems to have been comparable to that found amongst the most violenttribal types of society known ethnographically. Given the correlation that exists between thelevel of this violence and the frequency of LBK enclosures both spatially and chronologically,as well as the presence of defensive features in the majority of such enclosures, it is mostappropriate to speak of them as fortifications. We stress that this does not rule out thepractice of ritual at these sites, nor the use of them for secondary functions such as penninganimals. In fact, much of this ritual (skeletal manipulation and cannibalism) is probablyrelated to conflict. While much of this violence seems to have involved LBK communitiesfighting each other, as indicated by the mass graves at Talheim and Schletz-Asparn, we arguethat a number of lines of evidence point towards conflict during early stages of settlementwith local hunter-gatherers.

AcknowledgementsOur work at the site of Waremme-Longchamps was funded by the National Science Foundation. Many thanksto Ivan Jadin,Dominique Bosquet (Institut Royal de SciencesNaturelles de Belgique), and RussellQuick (UIC),as well as to Martin Carver and the two anonymous reviewers who read this paper and offered helpful questionsand comments. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.